November 2009Dolan Cummings will question the assumptions behind debates on drugs policy The drugs debate has long been dominated by the question of whether drugs should be prohibited or legalised, and of what kind of regulation is likely to minimise harm. While advocates of prohibition warn of the dangers of drugs and suggest that legalisation would make it worse, pro-legalisers insist that drug use is inevitable, and that prohibition only makes it riskier. But neither side has much to say about whether drug use is morally desirable, and if not, why not? The ongoing debate about reclassifying cannabis, for example, hinges not on whether dope turn users into degenerate hippies and dropouts so much as its effects on their mental health. Is this a reasonable argument for greater restrictions, or should we be free to choose our own poison, whatever its ill effects?
Most human cultures throughout history seem to involved ‘drug’-use of one kind or another, from drinking wine and beer in the Middle East and then Europe to chewing coca leaves or chat in South America or East Africa. Such practices have often been highly ritualised and embedded in wider culture, but also regulated and even prohibited in other circumstances. So how do we draw the line between ‘culture’ and ‘deviancy’? Are some drugs simply more dangerous than others, or is it simply a question of how they are used? Is Britain’s ‘drinking culture’ a part of our heritage, or an expression of social breakdown? Should drug use be seen as a medical problem, or should we be more careful to distinguish between abuse and civilised enjoyment? And with drugs increasingly being used to regulate everything from children’s behaviour to individuals’ moods, is it hypocritical to condemn those for whom ‘drugs’ are simply part of life? If drugs could be made completely safe, would their use be all right? Is there any place for drugs in the good life? Are drugs a means to expand our horizons and experiences, or a harmless recreational choice? Or are they a pernicious influence, Should politicians use the law to send a moral message?
Background ReadingsJust Say No to this ‘radical rethink’ on drugs, by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, spiked, 12 March 2007 Psychiatrists and drug companies are thoroughly redefining normal behaviour, by Christopher Lane, Battles in Print, 25 September 2007 Great moments in the drug war Kulturkampf, by Nick Gillespie, Reason, May 30, 2008 Drugs reclassification: smoke signals, by James Douglass, Free Society, Tuesday June 24, 2008 Britain’s drug debacle, by Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, 3 November 2008 Choosing life, by Dolan Cummings, Culture Wars, 12 June 2009 LSD less dangerous than alcohol, says government’s drugs adviser The Times 29 October 2009 Don’t forget: cannabis comes from ruthless, violent men by Tom Whipple The Times 31 October 2009 Drugs: Prejudice and political weakness have rejected scientific facts Observer 1 November 2009 This ‘revolt of the experts’ is revolting by Brendan O'Neill, spiked, Monday 02 November 2009 Drug Equality Alliance (DEA) who look to secure equal rights and equal protection through the rational and objective administration of drug laws For the public good, set the science free Tom Addiscott Manifesto Club 2009 http://www.manifestoclub.com/thinkpieces
Venue and Time The Shakespeare Pub, 16 Fountain Street, Manchester, M2 2AA at 7:15pm for a 7:30pm start. A charge of £5 per person will be made to cover costs incurred. |
